An article recently posted to MSNBC.com’s health section tells us, in a nutshell, that we should choose a food plan (diet) we can live with. To me, the whole point of changing one’s diet is to improve one’s health in every way: by reducing bodyfat, by taking in more of the good stuff (antioxidants, vitamins, phytochemicals) in healthy foods, by reducing one’s consumption of trash (transfats, refined grains, sugar).
The "diet" shouldn’t be something that can’t be sustained with pleasure for a lifetime. I plan to eat this way for the rest of my life. Once I’m not working on losing bodyfat, I can increase my calories moderately. But the portion-control and food-choice habits I’ve learned are not ones I want to ditch as soon as I reach goal. What would be the point, given that I hope to maintain a healthy weight?
I’ve done the Zone diet, Atkins, South Beach. They all "work," from the standpoint that all result in caloric reduction, which results in a loss of bodyfat. Atkins is untenable (at least long-term) for anyone who works out. I found the Zone too rigid–always having to worry about eating a "proper" ratio of carbs to protein.
Read Walter Willett (see "books for the buff" at left) for specifics on eating right. Then eat the right number of calories to lose fat, maintain bodyweight, or build muscle.
Here’s the MSNBC.com link:
Finding the right diet
"Proven weight loss" is a claim often made by weight loss programs. Yet two recent studies show that which diet you choose is less important than how well you stick with it.
